Can you guys give me some patriotic/nationalist texts that were written long before nationalism became the big thing in the 19th century? Kinda like this text about Germany in the Nuremberg Chronicle.
>As we look upon the noble, highly renowned, and illustrious cities, the magnificent houses of God, the mighty and powerful princes and prelates of the German nation, we note that all things considered, no country excels Germany;
>How long and how broad this country; how devout, how truthful, how righteous, how loyal, and how rich in people and possessions is this German nation; how noble, how strong, how versed and experienced in war; how elegant its churches, and how celebrated and distinguished its clergy; how magnanimous its princes; how illustrious and brilliant its cities; how beautiful its skies, how fertile its soil, and how neat the countryside
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=nur;cc=nur;rgn=div2;view=text;idno=nur.001.0004;node=nur.001.0004%3A11.2
>>1429230
That sounds like a Laudes a praise genre on Latin origin which remained in use during the Middle Ages.
>>1429254
But those usually praised kings and other rulers, not nations, right?
This is from al-Biruni's description of India around 1030 AD. It's not really 'nationalism' (you won't really find a lot of that) in the strict sense, just the usual cultural chauvinism. Still interesting though;
>We can only say, folly is an illness for which there is no medicine, and the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course from any foreigner. According to their belief, there is no other country on earth but theirs, no other race of man but theirs, and no created beings besides them have any knowledge or science whatsoever. Their haughtiness is such that, if you tell them of any science or scholar in Khurasan [Eastern Iran] and Persis [Persia], they will think you to be both an ignoramus and a liar. If they traveled and mixed with other nations, they would soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded as the present generation is.
>in all manners and usages they differ from us to such a degree as to frighten their children with us, with our dress, and our ways and customs, and as to declare us to be devil's breed, and our doings as the very opposite of all that is good and proper. By the by, we must confess, in order to be just, that a similar depreciation of foreigners not only prevails among us and the Hindus, but is common to all nations towards each other.
>>1429308
Huh. This guy is pretty open minded. Especially that last bit. I don't think I've ever read something from so long ago that felt so... Liberal?
Anything from Ancient Greeks, they were pretty chauvinistic. Aristotle considered all the barbarians natural slaves who should be ruled by Hellene master race.
>>1429623
Well he's sometimes considered the world's first real 'anthropologist' and admired Indian sciences and learning. He praised them as much as criticized them.
Here's a bit more about how the Indians saw foreigners
>they totally differ from us in religion, as we believe in nothing in which they believe, and vice versa. On the whole, there is very little disputing about theological topics among themselves; at the utmost, they fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or their property on religious controversy. On the contrary, all their fanaticism is directed against those who do not belong to them—against all foreigners. They call them mleccha, i.e. impure, and forbid having any connection with them, be it by intermarriage or any other kind of relationship, or by sitting, eating, and drinking with them, because thereby, they think, they would be polluted. They consider as impure anything which touches the fire and the water of a foreigner; and no household can exist without these two elements. Besides, they never desire that a thing which once has been polluted should be purified and thus recovered, as, under ordinary circumstances, if anybody or anything has become unclean, he or it would strive to regain the state of purity. They are not allowed to receive anybody who does not belong to them, even if he wished it, or was inclined to
their religion. This, too, renders any connection with them quite impossible, and constitutes the widest gulf between us and them.
He also talks about how the Indians used to admire the Greeks, but in recent generations had become more xenophobic due to conflict with invading Muslims.
Source: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_5949073_001/index.html
>>1429840
Was Aristoteles' justification of slavery racially motivated? I know that he though that some people were destined to be slaves by nature but did he only mean non-Greeks by that?
>>1429230
Italian City States. Hands down. Particularly the republics.
Civic Identity was tied to civic sovereignty, and not the meme dynastic loyalties of the time. Ergo the closest resembling nationalism in the Medieval ages.
People were proud of not being subjects of a kingdom and it's dynasty, but of a community where they have a stake in.
